Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
. jenna: we researched the pentagon for a independent staff we haven't got it yet. we have the research department said if we had revisions in afghanistan over the years and we haven't found any. they told the associated press doesn't tell the full story of progress against the taliban. >> fair enough. it is a snapshot, not the movie. once again i think it is pretty important when the administration uses this. panetta said last year that attacks were down in afghanistan in 2012. it doesn't seem to be the case. if we need to get more answers. jenna: we'll look for more information. we continue to cover the story throughout the day here on fox news. peter, thanks for your insight. >> thanks for having me. jon: one town's attempt to go green has some folks seeing red amid complaints wind turbines are making people sick. all this could end up costing taxpayers millions. we're live with that story. >>> plus, what do you get when you cross a rodeo, kids and sheep? the answer is on the way. [ male announcer ] how do you measure happiness? by the armful? by the barrelful? e carful? how about...
'hanlon, senior fellow of foreign policy studies at the brookings institution. essentially the pentagon counted attacks taken place against, you know, anti-taliban forces and found them down about 7% but then somebody said, oh, wait a minute. we forgot to count attacks on afghan-led units. seems a little surprising. >> it is clearly a mistake they should not have made. on the other hand i'm sure it wasn't intentional. by the way the number of attacks against afghan units were a lot more than 7% of the total. the good news in 2012 the war hasn't gone away, the fighting hasn't gone away, the war has not ended if our role is declining. afghan security forces are doing more and more fighting. the number of attacks against them the fatalities they suffered three times or four times as many as coalition fatalities. it may even be more or five. the as we pulled out our troops during the fighting season the a evident loo the violence didn't get worse. the afghan security forces did more and more of the fighting. i'm not saying this is good news. in the context of an overall transition to a afghan-led e
lawmakers talking about passing what's called transfer authority enabling these agencies, the pentagon and others, to set priorities and not this draconian sequester setup. the white house is saying that they may not be in favor of that. so you have this standoff that it appears the sequester's going to move forward just as it is. jon: we'll just see how bad it is. a lot of people say the politicians are sort of hyping the damage that we can expect starting friday. we'll see. bret baier from "special report." thank you. you can watch bret on "special report," all of the latest political developments, and this is going to be a big week, 6 p.m. eastern right here on fox news channel. jenna: well, u.s. special forces who risk their lives to defend the people of afghanistan, the innocent people of afghanistan, are under fire by the afghan president now. we're going to tell you what's behind hamid karzai's surprising accusations and what it means for our troops in the fight against the taliban. >>> plus, some breaking news from sin city. police naming a prime suspect in a wild shootout that
to head the pentagon after chuck hagel's nomination comes up short in a key senate vote. let's talk about it with monica crowley radio talk show host and fox news contributor. harry reid said just when you thought things continue get worscouldn't get worse, it gets worse. >> senator reid is sanctimonious on this point blaming the republicans and getting all up in arms about the fact that the republicans are holding off on this nomination when the democrats have performed similar maneuvers to try to block republican nominees including george h.w. bush's choice for defense secretary john tower. and nominee john bolton. jon: this is the kind of thing that has happened before. >> on both side, correct. nothing new here. jon: why are the administration, and democrats in the senate making it out as though the sky is falling here? >> they are trying to make a political argument that the republicans are just doing this for politics but nothing could be further from the truth. chuck hagel is a very problematic nominee. he had one of the most disastrous confirmation hearing performances in recent h
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)